Hillary Clinton leads Donald Trump by 2m votes

[Strange]

Just now, DriveByTrucker said:

True, but why should Kansas be able to decide what is good for California?

 

You make this statement knowing that California has something like 3,000,000 votes over Trump and California has the most electoral votes at 55 and New York in second at 31 with something like  1,500,000 votes over Trump? 

 

You think its right for Cali and NY to lord over the little guys like Kansas with a whopping 6 electoral votes? 

 

Point being that there are 50 states in this Democratic Republic. Its not all about Cali & New York. 

[DriveByTrucker]

4 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

The little people won….the ones who only listened to the big people lost.

 

Simples.

 

If you mean the working class when you say "little people", it really remains to be seen if they have won. I truly hope they will win btw, because that would mean Trump would fulfill his socialist promises of jobs, affordable healthcare, infrastructure improvement, free education, more hospitals and schools, killing trade-deals, etc. I am however very skeptical that come January he will actually consider the working man in any of his political decisions.....

 

[Strange]

Just now, DriveByTrucker said:

If you mean the working class when you say "little people", it really remains to be seen if they have won. I truly hope they will win btw, because that would mean Trump would fulfill his socialist promises of jobs, affordable healthcare, infrastructure improvement, free education, more hospitals and schools, killing trade-deals, etc. I am however very skeptical that come January he will actually consider the working man in any of his political decisions.....

 

You are not even american. What would you know about the motivations of US voters other than the minuscule samplings of Americans you are exposed to and the Media you choose to read? 

[DriveByTrucker]

4 minutes ago, Strange said:

 

You make this statement knowing that California has something like 3,000,000 votes over Trump and California has the most electoral votes at 55 and New York in second at 31 with something like  1,500,000 votes over Trump? 

 

You think its right for Cali and NY to lord over the little guys like Kansas with a whopping 6 electoral votes? 

 

Point being that there are 50 states in this Democratic Republic. Its not all about Cali & New York. 

 

Never said it is all about California and New York, but from a democratic point of view it is just impossible to explain that a vote in, say, Wyoming is worth 3.5 times that of a vote in California.

The system would already be more democratic if the electoral votes in every state would be divided based on the actual votes in each state. That still doesnt give dominant power to states like California or New York (and I wonder if it would have made a difference in the results).

Again, just to be clear, I am not disputing the results. The rules were made way before this election and everybody knows how it works. Besides it would be very hypocritical of me if I would start calling this a rigged system just because Trump won (as I find it hypocritical that the "rigged system preachers" of 2 and a half weeks ago all of a sudden don't find the system rigged anymore)

 

 

[Chicog]

It seems Jill Stein is going to request a recount in three states: Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania.

 

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2016/11/23/jill-stein-seeks-recount-wisconsin-michigan-and-pennsylvania/gmziuhamGOjDgYitbQpWSJ/story.html

 

Let's face it, it's weird enough already.

 

[Lupatria]

...and they call it democracy.

[JHolmesJr]

Im steined.

[Silurian]

1 hour ago, ilostmypassword said:

I guess, according to you, they should have decided "one acre, one vote." After all. lots of those acres may not have any people, but they are chock full of gophers. 

 

Yeah, I think it is funny that the Donald supporters love bringing out the red maps as if land mass itself voted for DT. How about a map that shows how it looks by population? A little closer...hmm?

 

 

Edited November 24, 2016 by Silurian

[Silurian]

Here is another good read for those interested on how the white vote sways the election.

 

The Electoral College magnifies the power of white voters

http://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2016/11/22/13713148/electoral-college-democracy-race-white-voters

 

[Baerboxer]

2 hours ago, 55Jay said:

There are EC voters who intend to flip their intended vote to Clinton but at the moment, not enough (37) to change the outcome.

 

"At least a half-dozen Democratic electors have signed onto an attempt to block Donald Trump from winning an Electoral College majority, an effort designed not only to deny Trump the presidency but also to undermine the legitimacy of the institution."

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/democrats-electoral-college-faithless-trump-231731

 

 

So they have no respect for the current constitution, the current process, wish to ignore who the people in their state voted, and wish to impose their views on the people they represent regardless of what those people want.

 

How very liberal and democratic of them. Why do the pseudo liberal socialists who constantly call themselves democrats and revile any who disagree with them as fascist racist everythingophobes actually always behave in a totalitarian way where only their views, opinions and desires count? They just can't see, and probably don't care, that people are becoming pissed off by their arrogant dictatorial ways and voting accordingly. So they want to change the voting system, without any reference to the people, and go against the wishes expressed by those they represent. What a surprise - not.

Edited November 24, 2016 by Baerboxer

[jonclark]

2 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

The electoral vote. The one that COUNTS.

 

Correct she lost.

 

But two million more Americans want her to be president than Mr. Trump - agreed? 

[sjaak327]

44 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

The little people won….the ones who only listened to the big people lost.

 

Simples.

The little people didn't win, are they this naieve to believe Trump cares about them ?

 

Meanwhile Trump will probably be a lame duck, because even his own party members on the hill hate his guts.

 

When do people realize that populist and nationalist politicians are not the way to go, as they don't make a society stronger ?

 

In any case, after Bush II the states are once again a laughing stock..

[55Jay]

2 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

So they have no respect for the current constitution, the current process, wish to ignore who the people in their state voted, and wish to impose their views on the people they represent regardless of what those people want.

 

How very liberal and democratic of them.

Would you say the same thing if the situation was reversed?

[elgordo38]

3 hours ago, JHolmesJr said:

For a rank novice like Mr Trump to garner even 10 million votes is amazing…so 62 million is absolutely a slap in the face of crooked hillary and her corrupt establishment.

 

Why even bother counting votes since he won legally?

 

Seems like they are just doing this to provide themselves with ammo for their 'resistance' or whatever quaint word they are using to describe their cry baby responses.

 

No one is even paying attention any more…so they could put any figure up.

Interesting article claiming Hillary should challenge the voting in some states. Seems there were irregularities in the voting machines in the key states. It was also interesting that employees for Diebold who makes the machine showed how simple it was to manipulate them

[Andaman Al]

18 minutes ago, Chicog said:

It seems Jill Stein is going to request a recount in three states: Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania.

 

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2016/11/23/jill-stein-seeks-recount-wisconsin-michigan-and-pennsylvania/gmziuhamGOjDgYitbQpWSJ/story.html

 

Let's face it, it's weird enough already.

 

You just made my day with that little Gem! Thanks.

[sjaak327]

12 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

So they have no respect for the current constitution, the current process, wish to ignore who the people in their state voted, and wish to impose their views on the people they represent regardless of what those people want.

 

How very liberal and democratic of them. Why do the pseudo liberal socialists who constantly call themselves democrats and revile any who disagree with them as fascist racist everythingophobes actually always behave in a totalitarian way where only their views, opinions and desires count? They just can't see, and probably don't care, that people are becoming pissed off by their arrogant dictatorial ways and voting accordingly. So they want to change the voting system, without any reference to the people, and go against the wishes expressed by those they represent. What a surprise - not.

The wole electoral college is undemocratic. I do agree that members of that college should not be allowed to vote differently from the people they represent.

 

I strongly believe that the head of state should be elected by popular vote only.

Edited November 24, 2016 by sjaak327

[Baerboxer]

2 minutes ago, jonclark said:

 

Correct she lost.

 

But two million more Americans want her to be president than Mr. Trump - agreed? 

 

So what? Same in the UK. More people voted for UKIP than the SNP. But SNP have 53 MP's and UK don't. That's how it works. Not who gets the most nationally wins. Neither US nor UK. 

Germany tries very hard to create a federal system that's fair to all. But it always produces a Chancellor from one of the main two parties. Based on creating allegiances and horse trading among the politicians.

 

Do you have a suggestion that is fair to all?

[55Jay]

Just now, sjaak327 said:

The wole electoral college is undemocratic. I do agree that members of that college should not be allowed to vote differently from the people they represent.

 

I stronly believe that the head of state should be elected by popular vote only.

When did you start having these strong beliefs?

[Get Real]

Just thought that we already know who won. Is the election still ongoing? Hope they not pay people to find useless information. LOL

 

[Baerboxer]

3 minutes ago, 55Jay said:

Would you say the same thing if the situation was reversed?

 

Yes.

[williamgeorgeallen]

3 hours ago, Andaman Al said:

 

I bet if they did a physical count of the paper she did not lose

yes but why bother. trump is the man. actually i dont even know why i read the article, or why it was written. it will not change anything.

[DriveByTrucker]

20 minutes ago, Strange said:

 

You are not even american. What would you know about the motivations of US voters other than the minuscule samplings of Americans you are exposed to and the Media you choose to read? 

 

Thats a statement based on your (completely unfounded) assumptions only.

The stupidity of the statement is actually really funny.

Let me ask you, how many millions of Americans do you personally know? And how many of these millions discussed their voting decision with you? Can I also conclude that you dont read any media, because that influences the perception you have on the voting decision of Americans? If you dont know millions of Americans, and you do read media, that would mean according to your own rules that you know absolutely nothing about America!

 

 

 

 

[jonclark]

Just now, Baerboxer said:

 

So what? Same in the UK. More people voted for UKIP than the SNP. But SNP have 53 MP's and UK don't. That's how it works. Not who gets the most nationally wins. Neither US nor UK. 

Germany tries very hard to create a federal system that's fair to all. But it always produces a Chancellor from one of the main two parties. Based on creating allegiances and horse trading among the politicians.

 

Do you have a suggestion that is fair to all?

 

She lost, but 2 million more Americans voted for Hilary and would prefer her to run the USA than Trump. - That is a statement of fact.

 

As to suggestions of fair systems of democracy - I'll leave that airy fairy stuff to people far wiser and more knowledgeable than I to discuss.  I prefer cold hard facts.

 

 

 

[pitrevie]

Shortly after President Barack Obama was announced the winner of the 2012 election, Donald Trump had what some might call a melodramatic freak out on Twitter. He condemned America's democratic process, said the Electoral College should get out of town and called for a revolution.

 

But Trump is still OK with the concept of freedom of speech and told the Twitterverse just how he felt.

He (Obama) lost the popular vote by a lot and won the election, (in fact Obama won the popular vote). We should have a revolution in this country!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 7, 2012

The phony electoral college made a laughing stock out of our nation. The loser one!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 7, 2012

 

ah how times have changed.

[Baerboxer]

4 minutes ago, Get Real said:

Just thought that we already know who won. Is the election still ongoing? Hope they not pay people to find useless information. LOL

 

 

The democrats are clutching at all straws they can to try and weasle in through the back door. 

 

They must be really desperate. 

 

Wonder what they think the 62% of voters who voted for Trump and the near 50% of voters who didn't vote would do should they somehow manage to flip this loss around? Roll over and just accept their manipulations?

 

 

[sjaak327]

2 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

The democrats are clutching at all straws they can to try and weasle in through the back door. 

 

They must be really desperate. 

 

Wonder what they think the 62% of voters who voted for Trump and the near 50% of voters who didn't vote would do should they somehow manage to flip this loss around? Roll over and just accept their manipulations?

 

 

Ah good old Baerboxer being a hypocrite. You seem to have forgotten how Bush II won his first presidency, 55555

[jaidam]

Take away the dead voters, and the illegal voters, Trump won the popular vote also. This looks to be heading the same way as Brexit, ie the elite changing the rules because they lost. 

[Baerboxer]

3 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

The democrats are clutching at all straws they can to try and weasle in through the back door. 

 

They must be really desperate. 

 

Wonder what they think the 62m of voters who voted for Trump and the near 50% of voters who didn't vote would do should they somehow manage to flip this loss around? Roll over and just accept their manipulations?

 

 

 

[Baerboxer]

2 minutes ago, sjaak327 said:

Ah good old Baerboxer being a hypocrite. You seem to have forgotten how Bush II won his first presidency, 55555

 

Do you understand the word hypocrite? 

 

For your scurrilous and defamatory comment to be true you would have to know what comment I made regarding former President Bush's election. 

 

Do you know that? Or just making it up as you go along?

[Baerboxer]

9 minutes ago, jonclark said:

 

She lost, but 2 million more Americans voted for Hilary and would prefer her to run the USA than Trump. - That is a statement of fact.

 

As to suggestions of fair systems of democracy - I'll leave that airy fairy stuff to people far wiser and more knowledgeable than I to discuss.  I prefer cold hard facts.

 

 

 

 

Fact - the POTUS is not and never has been elected on the popular vote. The electoral college has always been the system. 

Fact - this is the 5th time that a POTUS has been elected by this process whilst not receiving the most voters in the popular vote.

Fact - Hilary lost, Trump won based on the voting system used by the USA to elect it's POTUS.

 

Fact - it doesn't matter, change the result, or mean Hilary won.